coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant, Mrs Emma Vladimirovna Talysheva, is a Russian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Krasnodar.
6.  The applicant sued her relative, Mr T., claiming sole ownership of a house. By a judgment of 1 March 2001 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar granted her claims. No appeal was lodged.
7.  Subsequently, the applicant sued Mr T. and the Krasnodar Town Council, seeking annulment of their title to the ramshackle buildings adjacent to the house.
8.  On 18 June 2003 the Justice of the Peace in the 64th Circuit of the Tsentralniy District of Krasnodar granted her claims. No appeal was lodged.
9.  In 2004 Mr T. applied for supervisory review of the judgments of 1 March 2001 and 18 June 2003.
10.  On 12 February 2004 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of 18 June 2003 because the Justice of the Peace had misapplied the domestic law. Having re-examined the case, the Presidium issued a new judgment, rejecting the applicant's claims.
11.  On the same date in the other case the Presidium also set aside the judgment of 1 March 2001 on account of procedural defects. In the Presidium's view, the first-instance court had misinterpreted the applicant's claim, had not supplied a legal basis for its findings, and had erroneously found that the defendant had admitted the claims. The Presidium re-examined the case and issued a new judgment rejecting the applicant's claims.
12.  Both of the Presidium's judgments indicated that the parties had been notified of the hearing and had appeared before it.
13.  On 21 July 2001 Mr T. applied for a court injunction to prevent the applicant from using a plot of land. By a default judgment of 30 October 2001, the Justice of the Peace in the 61st Circuit of the Tsentralniy District of Krasnodar granted the injunction. Upon the applicant's request, the Justice of the Peace revoked that judgment on 3 September 2002. On 21 November 2002 the Pervomayskiy District Court, sitting on appeal, decided that the default judgment should remain in force.
14.  On 10 April 2003 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of 21 November 2002 and remitted the case to the Justice of the Peace.
15.  On 14 December 2004 the District Court discontinued the proceedings because the parties had repeatedly failed to attend hearings.
16. The proceedings were resumed on an unspecified date. On 11 April 2006 the District Court endorsed a friendly settlement which had been reached by the parties.
17.  On 27 February 2001 the Krasnodar Regional Court took a final decision rejecting the applicant's claims in an inheritance dispute.
18.  The applicant was also an unsuccessful party to another land dispute. The final decision on that matter was taken by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 22 April 2003.
5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in the town of Belgorod in the Belgorod Region.
6.  On 29 December 1992 the applicant's husband bought municipal property, including the premises of a former restaurant. According to the applicant, several years later her husband, fearing for his life and for the safety of his family, signed a contract with a number of individuals, transferring title to the restaurant building to them.
7.  On 5 May 2002 the applicant, in the interests of her minor child, lodged an action against her husband, seeking invalidation of the contract. She claimed that her husband had acted ultra vires while signing the contract, as he had not been the sole owner of the building. A part of the building had belonged to their minor child.
8.  The Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod accepted the claim for examination and listed a hearing.  However, on 13 August 2002 it transferred the case to the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region for further adjudication. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:
“By virtue of paragraph 1 of Section 4 of the Code of Commercial Procedure of the Russian Federation, which entered into force on 6 August 2002, the present case falls into the jurisdiction of a commercial court.
Under Article 7 of the Federal Law “On Putting into Operation the Code of Commercial Procedure of the Russian Federation” cases which are in the process of adjudication by courts of general jurisdiction and which, according to the Code of Commercial Procedure..., have been placed under the jurisdiction of commercial courts, should be transferred by courts of general jurisdiction, with the plaintiff's consent, to commercial courts within two weeks after paragraph 1 of Section 4 of the Code of Commercial Procedure has entered into force... If the plaintiff does not consent to the transfer of the case from the court of general jurisdiction to the commercial court, the court of general jurisdiction discontinues the proceedings in the case at issue because the case is not within the jurisdiction of the court of general jurisdiction.
At the hearing the plaintiff, [the applicant], consented, which she had confirmed in writing, to the transfer of the case to the commercial court.
The court finds it necessary to transfer the case pertaining to the [applicant's] action against [her husband]... to the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region.”
An appeal against the District Court's decision could have been lodged before the Belgorod Regional Court within ten days.
9.  On 17 October 2002 the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region discontinued the proceedings because it found that it had no jurisdiction over the claim.
10.  On 10 December 2002 the Appeal Division of the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region upheld the decision of 17 October 2002, endorsing the reasons given by the Commercial Court. On 24 March 2003 the Federal Commercial Court of the Central Circuit, in the final instance, upheld the decisions of 17 October and 10 December 2002.
5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Snezhinsk, Chelyabinsk region. He is currently serving a prison sentence in the Chelyabinsk region.
6.  On 16 July 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery.
7.  On 18 July 2003 the Snezhinsk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk region (“the Town Court”) released the applicant on an undertaking not to leave the town.
8.  On 23 July 2003 the Town Court remanded the applicant in custody. It held that his detention was justified on the ground of his previous convictions, the gravity of the offence, and the risk that he would abscond, obstruct investigation of the case, commit another crime or hinder the execution of the sentence.
9.  On 25 July 2003 the applicant's counsel Ye. appealed against the detention order of 23 July 2003. He contested the grounds on which the applicant had been placed in detention. On the same date the Town Court registered the appeal as no. 132.
10.  It follows from the Government's submissions, confirmed by a copy of the record of the outgoing mail of the Town Court, that on 28 July 2003 the Town Court sent copies of the grounds of appeal to the applicant, the investigating authorities and the prosecutor's office. On 4 August 2003 the Town Court sent a notification about the examination of the appeal by the Regional Court on 14 August 2003 to the detention facility in which the applicant was detained and to his counsel. However, the Government did not submit any document confirming that the applicant or his lawyer had received that notification. On 7 August 2003 the appeal materials reached the Chelyabinsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”).
11.  According to the applicant, neither he nor his lawyer received the notification of the appeal hearing.
12.  On 14 August 2003 the Regional Court examined the appeal in the absence of the applicant and his counsel. The Prosecutor, who was present at the hearing, considered that the appeal should be dismissed. The Regional Court upheld the detention order of 23 July 2003, finding it lawful and duly reasoned.
13.  Subsequently the Town Court extended the applicant's detention on 17 and 26 September 2003. The applicant did not appeal against those extension orders.
14.  On 4 November 2003 the Town Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. On 15 January 2004 the Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction and reduced the term of imprisonment to eight years.
15.  On 13 April 2005 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation granted the applicant's request for supervisory review of the judgment of 4 November 2003, as upheld on 15 January 2004, and remitted the case for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Regional Court. On 1 June 2005 the Presidium of the Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Nowogród Bobrzański.
6.  On 4 February 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.
7.  On 2 January 2007 the applicant was indicted before the Jelenia Góra Regional Court. He was charged with several counts of robbery. The bill of indictment comprised 14 accused.
8.  On 9 March 2007 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court found that it had no competence to deal with the case and referred it to the Zielona Góra Regional Court.
9.  On 22 June 2007 the case was remitted to the Zielona Góra Regional Prosecutor in connection with another investigation conducted against one of the applicant’s co-accused.
10.  The first hearing was set down for 23 January 2008; however, on 22 January 2008, it was adjourned as the applicant’s co-accused’s counsel had not been properly summoned.
11.  The hearing, scheduled for 28 February 2008 was adjourned as a motion for the judge to step down was to be considered.
12.  A subsequent hearing, listed for 15 April 2008, was cancelled because it was not possible for the police to bring the applicant’s co-accused from prison.
13.  The hearing, scheduled for 20 May 2008, was adjourned as priority had been given to another case.
14.  The hearing, scheduled for 21 May 2008, was adjourned as another motion for the judge to step down was to be considered.
15.  As of August 2009 the proceedings were still pending.
16.  On 16 June 2008 the applicant filed with the Poznań Court of Appeal a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in respect of the criminal proceedings instituted against him and asked for just satisfaction. He relied on the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004.
17.  The applicant stressed that he had been detained while awaiting his trial and sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Zielona Góra Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (the equivalent of approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).
18.  On 19 June 2008 the Poznań Court of Appeal gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Zielona Góra Regional Court, finding that there had been a period of unjustified inactivity from 26 March 2007 until 5 December 2007. However, the court did not grant any just satisfaction to the applicant, pointing out that the decision whether to grant compensation in such proceedings was facultative.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 25 November 2002 the applicant company dismissed M. from his job. On 20 December 2002 M. initiated court proceedings seeking his re-instatement.
7.  After numerous postponements of the hearing at M.’s request, the Buiucani District Court found in his favour on 5 February 2004.
8.  The applicant company appealed. On 22 April 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and adopted a new one, rejecting all of M.’s claims. The court found that M. had not submitted any evidence to support his claim that on 1 November 2002, when he was absent from work, he had been at a close relative’s funeral.
9.  M. lodged an appeal in cassation. The first hearing before the Supreme Court of Justice was scheduled for 23 June 2004. On 18 June 2004 the applicant company informed the court that its representative would be away for the day and asked for a postponement of the hearing.
10.  According to the applicant company, it did not hear from the court and thus did not submit its written reply to M.’s appeal, as it was waiting for a summons for a new date. On 15 July 2004 it enquired about the new date of the hearing. In response, it was informed that M.’s appeal had been examined on 7 July 2004 and fully allowed.
11.  In its judgment, the court relied, inter alia, on evidence of M.’s presence at a close relative’s funeral and on the trade union association’s opposition to the dismissal.
12.  Having examined the materials in the file, the applicant company found that its request for a postponement had been accepted by the court on 23 June 2004 and a new date for the hearing had been set for 7 July 2004. There was also a summons for that date, which had been signed only by M.
13.  The applicant company lodged a request for revision of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice. It informed the court that it had not received any summons for 7 July 2004 and drew the court’s attention to the absence in the file of any evidence regarding the delivery of the summons. It invoked Article 6 of the Convention.
14.  On 27 October 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the request. It found that the court had sent the summons to the applicant company’s address on 24 June 2004 and that the applicant company had failed to appear at the hearing on 7 July 2009 without informing the court. The court did not see any reason to believe that the applicant company had not received the summons since the stub from the summons proved that it had been sent out and since “there was no evidence that the summons had not been received”. It added that, under Article 444 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP, see below), the failure of one of the parties to appear did not prevent the court from examining the case and that, under Article 449 CCP, the examination of the case in the absence of a party was not a ground for the revision of the judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Gorno Lakocerej.
5.  On an unspecified date in 1991, the applicant, as a successful litigant, instituted enforcement proceedings against the Croatian company “Fruktus”, (“the debtor”), for payment of a debt.
6.  On 6 June 1991 the then Ohrid Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”) upheld the applicant's request ordering the debtor to transfer the amount due on his account (“the 1991 order”).
7.  On 20 June 1991 the Zagreb Payment Exchange Bureau (Служба за општествено книговодство Загреб) (“the Bureau”) transferred part of the debt on the applicant's account.
8.  On 4 February 1992 the applicant requested the court to enforce the remainder. On 19 February 1992 the first-instance court granted this request.
9. On 9 November 1992 it rejected as out of time the debtor's objection on the 1991 order. On 19 March 1993 the Bitola District Court dismissed an appeal of the debtor against this latter decision rejecting its argument that normal communication had been disrupted because of the war conflict in Croatia at the material time.
10.  On 20 September 1993 the first-instance court unsuccessfully requested the applicant to propose an alternative means of enforcement. On 8 November 1994 it stayed the proceedings finding that the enforcement of the remainder, by the means proposed by the applicant, had become impossible due to the dissolution of the then Federal Bureau of Yugoslavia and the creation of the Bureau, as an autonomous institution of the independent Croatia.
11.  On 11 July 1995 the Bitola District Court upheld the applicant's appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It held that the dissolution of the then Federal Bureau of Yugoslavia could not be regarded as a valid ground for suspending the enforcement. It ordered the lower court to contact the Ministry of Justice so as to establish whether an inter-state agreement existed between the respondent State and Croatia concerning the payment exchange operations. No further decision has been taken.
12.  On 31 August 2001 the case-file was destroyed. According to the Government, all case-files involving a foreign debtor were destroyed on the basis of an internal act of competent courts. There is no evidence that that was brought to the applicant's attention. The queries which he made at an unspecified date in 2003 revealed that the case had been archived.
5.  The applicants were born in 1936 and 1960 respectively and live in Sofia. The first applicant is the second applicant’s mother.
6.  In 1969 the first applicant and her husband bought from the Sofia municipality an apartment which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1947.
7.  On 22 February 1993 the heir of the pre-nationalisation owner of the apartment brought proceedings against the first applicant and her husband, alleging that their title to the apartment was null and void and seeking the restoration of his own title.
8.  The case was examined by the Sofia District Court, which dismissed the action in a judgment of 17 July 1995. On an appeal by the former owner’s heir, on 10 June 1996 the Sofia City Court reversed and allowed the claim.
9.  On an unspecified date in the summer of 1996 the first applicant and her husband filed a petition for review (cassation). While the case was pending before the Supreme Court of Cassation, on an unspecified date, most likely in 1998, they also sought the reopening of the proceedings. Under domestic law at the time, they were entitled to do so in view of the fact that the judgment of the Sofia City Court was formally considered to be final. The first applicant and her husband sought reopening on the basis of newly-discovered evidence, namely an instruction of the Ministry of Architecture and Public Works of 1968 concerning the sale of State-owned apartments.
10.  The Supreme Court of Cassation held a hearing on 10 November 1998 and dealt both with the petition for review (cassation) submitted in 1996 and the request for reopening submitted in 1998. In a judgment of 2 March 1999 it reopened the proceedings, finding that the first applicant and her husband could not have been aware of the newly-discovered document earlier. It quashed the judgment of the Sofia City Court of 10 June 1996 and remitted the case. Accordingly, it held that it would not examine the petition for review (cassation).
11.  The case was remitted to the Sofia City Court, which held its only hearing on 21 June 2001. Although it took into account the 1968 instruction of the Ministry of Architecture and Public Works on the basis of which the proceedings had been reopened, the domestic court reached again the conclusion that the title of the first applicant and her husband was null and void. In a judgment of 3 August 2001 it allowed the claim against them.
12.  On 29 October 2001 the first applicant and her husband appealed against that judgment in cassation.
13.  On 9 March 2002 the first applicant’s husband passed away and was succeeded by the two applicants. The second applicant joined the proceedings.
14.  The Supreme Court of Cassation held two hearings on 18 March and 4 November 2003. In a final judgment of 9 December 2003 it upheld the Sofia City Court’s judgment of 3 August 2001 whereby the title of the first applicant and her husband had been found to be null and void.
7.  The applicants were born in 1926 and 1927 respectively. The second applicant lives in Sofia. The two applicants were spouses.
8.  In 1966 they bought from the Sofia municipality an apartment of 81 square metres, located in the centre of the city, which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years.
9.  At the beginning of 1993 the heir of the former pre-nationalisation owners of the property brought proceedings against the applicants under section 7 of the Restitution Law.
10.  By judgments of 24 September 1996 and 10 July 1998 the Sofia District Court and the Sofia City Court allowed the claim. They found the applicants’ title to be null and void on two grounds: 1) no decision of the mayor to initiate the sale procedure had been found in the case file; nor had the applicants established that such a decision had existed but had been lost or destroyed; 2) the sale had not been approved by the Minister of Finance, as required by law, but by one of his deputies.
11.  The applicants did not submit a petition for review (cassation).
12.  On an unspecified date in 1998 they vacated the apartment. In May 1999 they were granted the tenancy of a municipal apartment of 51 square metres.
13.  Following the judgment of 10 July 1998 the applicants applied to receive compensation bonds, which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. In December 2000 they obtained bonds with a total face value of 62,400 Bulgarian levs (BGN), in accordance with a valuation of the apartment prepared by an expert.
14.  On 9 July 2003 the second applicant sold her half of the bonds for BGN 7,434.01, the equivalent of 3,810 euros (EUR).
15.  On 17 February 2004 the first applicant sold his half of the bonds for BGN 7,387.68, the equivalent of EUR 3,780.
16.  The relevant background facts, domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’ s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.
6.  The applicants were born in 1927 and 1951 respectively and live in Varna. They are a father and his son.
7.  In 1959 the first applicant and his wife bought from the State, through the Ministry of Defence, an apartment of 115 square metres in the centre of Varna. The apartment had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years. It had been a part of a bigger apartment, which had on an unspecified date before 1959 been divided into two smaller ones.
8.  In the beginning of 1993 the heirs of the former pre-nationalisation owner of the property brought proceedings against the first applicant and his wife under section 7 of the Restitution Law.
9.  In 2003 the first applicant’s wife died and was inherited by the two applicants.
10.  The proceedings under section 7 of the Restitution Law ended by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 20 February 2004. The courts found that the applicants’ title was null and void because the division of the initial bigger apartment into two smaller ones (see paragraph 7 above) had not been carried out in accordance with the law.
11.  Immediately after the final judgment in their case, it became possible for the applicants to obtain compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicants did not avail themselves of this opportunity.
12.  In December 2006 the heirs of the former owner of the apartment brought a rei vindicatio action and an action for damages against the first applicant who was still living in the apartment. The proceedings are still pending. The first applicant’s request to be accommodated in a municipally‑owned dwelling, lodged in 2004, has not yet been granted due to the unavailability of free apartments.
13.  These have been summarised in the Court’ s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.